Hi Simon, > > codeberg omits the information about the committer and the commit date: > > In > > https://gitweb.git.savannah.gnu.org/gitweb/?p=inetutils.git;a=commitdiff;h=f6b14c9afeb0baedf235303545b05833ea497ce6 > > it looks like Collin pushed his patch himself, and already two weeks ago. > > There is no trace of the fact that you approved and committed it, > > nor of the date when you did so. (In fact the commit is identical to > > the one Collin submitted at > > https://codeberg.org/inetutils/inetutils/pulls/5/commits .) > > > > Maybe the advantages are worth this drawback? Maybe that should be an RFE > > w.r.t. Foregejo? > > Interesting, I hadn't thought about this. > > I think most codeberg/github/gitlab projects and folks doesn't see this > because the defaults are to use merge commits, which would record this > kind of information in a different way. I think merge commits are > really ugly so I disallowed them on the inetutils project. > > So either we change workflow and start to use merge commits (I'm not a > fan of this right now but open to change) or we see if we improve things > without using merge commits.
I think merge commits make sense when you have a large number of developers working on a code base simultaneously or a large number of big features being developed in parallel. Merge commits do NOT make sense when the number of changes per week is small, or when some of the commits impact many files (e.g. code style changes across the entire code base). > I agree we could consider a RFE on forgejo on this. What would we want > to actually happen here? That clicking the 'approve' button would set > the git commit identity to my codeberg user account? Yes. And that the commit date would be set to the current time. > Optionally add a Signed-Off: header? Yes, this is a good idea too, for project which use this 'Signed-Off:' convention. Bruno
